This is the end result of the concept of "copyright"; the people who are rich enough to make stuff will only do so for money until so few people are allowed to create at all that they can do whatever shitty thing they want.
if this was for the money, they’d make a better product.
I'm not really familiar with who is in what role here, but the audience is not the people who get to "vote with their wallets" here. Since it's on a subscription service broadcast, all the audience can do is cancel their subscription, which the producers are counting on not happening because there are other shows included with the subscription. Every subscriber is funding the producers whether they ever watch the show or not. Further, if this is Amazon, every person using their shipping services is funding it because the streaming stuff is packaged in with a paid account.
When a producer is involved and bankrolling media, they are the customer. If the producer wants a bad product, they will pay for it. If the producer is sufficiently shielded from the end audience, they don't really have any drawback.
I imagine that saying “every property is up for grabs” would give a massive advantage to mega corporations with the resources to start mass-marketing half a dozen shows at once.
No doubt about it, there should be SOME copyright. But big corporations are going to be avantaged no matter what in this particular category. Without copyright, big corps can snag up anybody's content without compensation, many content makers may not even bother if this were the case. With copyright, big corps always have the money to persaude content makers. If the content maker doesn't sell out to big corps, their family/estate likely will sell out to big corps.
A properly limited copyright is the best option. When the United States was founded, copyright was a maximum of 28 years. Sure, big corps can eventually mass produce the original content maker's content as you say, but the content maker will have time for their work to stand out on its' own while getting compensated, then EVERYONE, not just big corps, will have a chance to make their own version if they so desire, therefore actually giving competition to the big corps.
I wouldn't say it's the mere existence of copyright privileges, but IP for sure. They aren't the same thing. I'm fine with basic copyrights and patents but IP shouldn't exist, definitely not for corporations. It's something lawyers made up and everyone accepted. Take it away and you'll kneecap all the powerful corps imposing homogenous PC culture on the world way more than getting rid of ESG would.
Almost nobody on either side of the political spectrum has a problem with IP so I pretty much gave up trying to evangelize this to people. Instead I just laugh when their favorite works are defiled. This is the natural consequence of artificial government-backed monopolies they support. 🤷♂️
This is the end result of the concept of "copyright"; the people who are rich enough to make stuff will only do so for money until so few people are allowed to create at all that they can do whatever shitty thing they want.
I'm not really familiar with who is in what role here, but the audience is not the people who get to "vote with their wallets" here. Since it's on a subscription service broadcast, all the audience can do is cancel their subscription, which the producers are counting on not happening because there are other shows included with the subscription. Every subscriber is funding the producers whether they ever watch the show or not. Further, if this is Amazon, every person using their shipping services is funding it because the streaming stuff is packaged in with a paid account.
When a producer is involved and bankrolling media, they are the customer. If the producer wants a bad product, they will pay for it. If the producer is sufficiently shielded from the end audience, they don't really have any drawback.
tl;dr: audience =/= customer
No doubt about it, there should be SOME copyright. But big corporations are going to be avantaged no matter what in this particular category. Without copyright, big corps can snag up anybody's content without compensation, many content makers may not even bother if this were the case. With copyright, big corps always have the money to persaude content makers. If the content maker doesn't sell out to big corps, their family/estate likely will sell out to big corps.
A properly limited copyright is the best option. When the United States was founded, copyright was a maximum of 28 years. Sure, big corps can eventually mass produce the original content maker's content as you say, but the content maker will have time for their work to stand out on its' own while getting compensated, then EVERYONE, not just big corps, will have a chance to make their own version if they so desire, therefore actually giving competition to the big corps.
I wouldn't say it's the mere existence of copyright privileges, but IP for sure. They aren't the same thing. I'm fine with basic copyrights and patents but IP shouldn't exist, definitely not for corporations. It's something lawyers made up and everyone accepted. Take it away and you'll kneecap all the powerful corps imposing homogenous PC culture on the world way more than getting rid of ESG would.
Almost nobody on either side of the political spectrum has a problem with IP so I pretty much gave up trying to evangelize this to people. Instead I just laugh when their favorite works are defiled. This is the natural consequence of artificial government-backed monopolies they support. 🤷♂️